[Leica] Re: Color film advice needed

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

On 8/10/04 2:53 PM, "Herbert Kanner" <kanner@acm.org> typed:

> There has been an incredible change in the quality of print film
> since the '80s. At least for 8 x 10 from 35 mm, I see no point in
> using film slower than 400. Perhaps the 800 film will begin to show
> grain for that degree of enlargement. The print film of the '80s had
> poor color saturation and poor definition--definitely good for little
> other than portraiture (my humble opinion).  The current stuff is
> absolutely brilliant. If your ultimate object is prints, not slides,
> print film is now the preferred medium, if only that it's great
> latitude means that decisions as to whether to show detail in shadows
> or highlights can usually be made when printing--do not need to be
> made when shooting the picture.
> 
> People have their favorites, but I'm convinced that there is not that
> much difference between films, despite what reviewers say.  At one
> point, I read a glowing review of Agfa Optima; I had been using Fuji
> Superia.  So, I put a roll of each in each of two cameras and shot
> the same picture using the same focal length.  Well, when I first
> printed, the two negatives produced radically different colors, but
> after fiddling with the enlarger filtration, I was able to produce
> indistinguishable prints from both. And, since the grain appeared
> similar, I settled on the Fuji, which is obtainable in groceries and
> and drug stores all over the world, while the Agfa film, at least
> around here, is only to be found in a camera store.


I think Kodak and Fuji go neck and neck. And leapfrog while they're at it.
But Agfa as a way of being all over the place. Usually back a few lengths.
Sometimes it would seem they've come out with something really nice and for
a whole new look over the Kodak and Fuji people are used to looking at. But
then next batch you buy it's way different film.
They have problems with consistency. Maybe they change their mind a lot.
Maybe too much St. Pauli Girl's in the cafeteria.
Last Agfa color neg I used the 100 ASA was way grainer than the Kodak or
Fuji 400. Great yellows though like I never say.
If Kodak was doing an add with their yellow box in it they'd be better off
using Agfa film. Of that generation at least. And medium or large format.

I agree today's 400 speed films are the 100 or 125 speed films of the 70's
or early 80's.
Grain wise.
And way better color wise. Saturation and correction from mixed light
sources seem tuned to perfection like we never thought we'd ever see. Until
it was 2001. Or 1984.

Even in 35mm  400 speed film is viable for just about any use. I think you
could plaster an airplane terminal wall with a shot with one or that big
poster thing in times square or Grand Central Station. I know it's been done
from Kodachrome and the 64 as well as the 25.

Still the 100 stuff might give you the split ends at the ends of the
eyelashes in a full length shot.
If you used a modern Leica M lens in ideal conditions like a studio strobe
or two.
Still there's no reason to use 400 speed film with studio strobes of average
watt seconds.. Might as well go for the gusto and use the slow stuff you're
still going to be shooting at f11/16. I don't get such great results when I
dial my Balcars way down. There is some kind of cool crossover going on.
Maybe I should get new ones I got mine in 1979. All my friends have been
thought 3 changes of studio strobes since then. From Normans to Speedetron
to Dynalights to pro photo.

Balcars take a licken and keep on flashen.
THEY-ARE-FROM-FRANCE.

(this is true)


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/